Predictors of Female Sexual Aggression Among a U.S. MTurk Sample: The Protective Role of Sexual Assertiveness

Abstract

We studied predictors of female sexual aggression (FSA) among a U.S. Mechanical Turk sample (from Amazon’s online crowdsourcing platform) of 634 adult women (median age = 32). A logistic regression analysis revealed that five measures contributed significantly to a model predicting past use of a tactic of post-refusal sexual persistence (PRSP), accounting for 19% of variance. Women’s use of a PRSP tactic was associated with lower scores on two sexual assertiveness measures (the ability to refuse sex and the ability to ask questions about a partner’s sexual health history) and higher scores on measures of acceptance of heterosexual male rape myths, early courtship rehearsal (number of others called, texted, tweeted, sexted due to attraction before the age of 18), and sexual sensation seeking. Based on our results, we suggest that sexual assertiveness training may be a useful addition to anti-sexual assault programming. For better prediction and potential prevention of FSA, we recommend continued research on the variables in this study and additional factors related to maladaptive personality (e.g., psychopathy, narcissism, and antisocial values) and the use of alcohol and drugs.

Keywords

Female sexual aggression sexual assertiveness post-refusal sexual persistence

The topic of female sexual aggression (FSA) is among the most controversial in sexuality research. In this article, we define sexual aggression broadly as the use of tactics of persistent arousal, emotional coercion, alcohol or drugs, or physical force to obtain sexual contact with a person against their will (Anderson et al., 2020). For decades, there has been societal and professional skepticism about claims that a heterosexual woman would use pressure or force to obtain sexual contact with a male partner (Anderson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998; Gavin & Porter, 2015). One major concern has been that research on sexually aggressive women would trivialize or take the focus away from the seriousness of widespread rape of women in our culture (Muehlenhard, 1998; Stock, 1998). In fact, a co-author of this article was told by colleagues in 1989 that his PhD dissertation on the topic of women’s sexual aggression toward adolescent and adult males was potentially damaging to the causes of women and would never be published (Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 1998, p. 2).

Another obstacle to research on sexually aggressive women was the stereotype that women are too sexually “uninterested” or passive to pressure or force a man into sex. This belief underlies the entrenched traditional sexual script (TSS) that prescribes that women serve as “gatekeepers” to the sexual advances of men (Beres et al., 2019; Fisher & Pina, 2013; LaPlant et al., 1980; Weare, 2018). Adding to this perception of women as sexually passive was the stereotype that women are incapable of inflicting the type of physical force or harm that can take place during a sexual assault (Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 1998). According to Gavin and Porter (2015), men are viewed as capable of physical violence, whereas women are simplistically perceived as only engaging in “passive, submissive, and emotional aggression” (p. 2).

In recent years, these obstacles to research on sexually aggressive women have greatly diminished. For one, the growing literature on adjudicated female sexual offenders (e.g., Gannon et al., 2010) demonstrated that a very small but undeniably real sub-population of women are capable of sexually abusing children and adults. An accumulation of surveys revealing that measurable percentages of college women reported perpetrating sexual aggression (see review below) also had an effect, as well as did surveys of college men who reported being sexually victimized by female perpetrators (e.g., Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Turchik, 2012). Another factor was the evolution of the women’s movement which emphasized that women are multi-dimensional beings whose full range of behaviors merit scientific inquiry, including their potential capacity for sexual aggression. Stemple et al. (2017) proposed that studying FSA is consistent with feminist approaches that study intersectionality, examine power relationships, and challenge gender role stereotypes (p. 303). Gavin and Porter (2015) argued that female aggression is a “fact of life” that deserves to be studied in its own right and should not necessarily be viewed as a paler version of male aggression (p. 3). In their opinion, women who behave aggressively are likely to have different motives and modes of expression than their male counterparts. While Gavin and Porter were addressing all aggressive behaviors, we believe that their approach should be applied to the topic of FSA.

Although much progress has been made in the study of female sex offenders (e.g., Gannon et al., 2010), the social sciences are only in the early stages of exploring the parameters of unreported FSA among mainstream college and community samples (Bouffard et al., 2016; Krahe et al., 2003; T. D. Russell et al., 2017). We use the term “unreported” to refer to sexually aggressive behaviors acknowledged in anonymous surveys which presumably were not reported to the police. In order for society and the criminal justice system to move toward prevention and treatment of FSA, we need more information about the characteristics of sexually aggressive women. Thus, the purpose of this article is to expand our understanding of FSA based upon research conducted in the social sciences over the past several decades. We begin with a brief review of the research-based prevalence rates of female perpetration assessed in North American and international samples of college and community women. We follow with a review of key variables established by research to be predictive of FSA in these populations. Finally, we present the methods and results of our study on predictors of sexual aggression among a U.S. sample of Mechanical Turk (MTurk) female employees—adult women who independently contracted with a subsidiary of the Amazon company to take surveys for pay.

Women Reporting Perpetration of Sexual Aggression

U.S. and Canada Studies

We reviewed 20 studies conducted in the United States and Canada between 1980 and 2015 that asked both women and men of dating age—usually college students—to report perpetration rates (Anderson et al., 2020). Because every study used different measures and methods, the rates were highly variable. FSA rates ranged from less than 10% in some studies (e.g., Palmer et al., 2010; Struckman-Johnson, 1988) to 20% to 30% (e.g., Buday & Peterson, 2015; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003) to as high as 50% (Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009). Averaging over all studies, the FSA rate was approximately 16%. Most of the sexually aggressive acts reported by women and men in these studies involved emotional coercion, arousal, or intoxication tactics and not physical force.

International Studies

In groundbreaking work on international FSA, Krahe et al. (2003) discovered that 9% of a sample of young German women used aggressive strategies to coerce a man into sexual activities. FSA rates among young adult women ranged from 2% to 5% in Belgium, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, and Slovakia, 6% in the Netherlands and Poland, and as high as 15% in Greece (Krahe et al., 2015). Related research teams documented FSA rates of 14% for women in Turkey (Shuster, Krahe, & Toplu-Demirtas, 2016) and 16% for women in Chile (Shuster, Krahe, Baeze, & Munoz-Reyes, 2016). Gamez-Guadix et al. (2011), surveying dating violence among 20,000 college students in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin American, the Middle East, and North America, established that FSA rates of 20% for verbal coercion and 2% for the use of physical force.

Predictors of FSA

The studies discussed above are important because they signaled to society that some women around the globe, by their own self reports, were engaging in sexual aggression. The next research advance on this topic was the identification of variables that contributed to women’s sexual aggression in mainstream populations. What follows is a review of key predictors of FSA discovered in anonymous surveys of female college students and community members residing in the United States, Canada, and other countries. In these studies, female participants, who were almost exclusively heterosexual, were defined as “sexually aggressive” if they reported ever engaging in at least one act of sexual aggression ranging from verbal pressure to physical force.

Aggressive Environment and Physical and Sexual Abuse

A prevalent finding in the criminology literature is that female offenders often have a history of growing up in abusive environments in which they behave aggressively and are subjected to physical aggression and/or sexual abuse (Gannon et al., 2010). Numerous researchers have explored the extent to which unreported female offenders share these experiences. Findings are mixed for whether sexually aggressive women engage in other types of aggression. Among U.S. college women, Hines and Saudino (2003) documented that perpetration of sexual aggression was related to their perpetration of psychological aggression. Craig Shea (1998) found a link between the use of verbal sexual aggression and physical aggression against men, but Hogben and Waterman (2000) did not. Among European samples, Krahe et al. (2015) determined that for every one point increase on a scale measuring women’s acceptance of dating aggression, the odds of her being sexually coercive went up 84%.

There is some evidence that FSA correlates with receiving past physical abuse. Hines and Saudino (2003) found that U.S. women who perpetrated sexual aggression also were likely to report being victims of both psychological and physical aggression. The experience of past physical abuse was correlated to sexually coercive behavior of U.S. college women (Craig Shea, 1998), and of high-risk Dutch girls (Slotboom et al., 2011). Among a multination sample of women, receiving corporal punishment before age 12 was related to antisocial behaviors, which, in turn, were related to the use of verbal, physical, and sexual coercion (Gamez-Guadix et al., 2011).

One of the strongest predictors of FSA in the literature is the experience of being sexually victimized in one’s past—either in childhood, adolescence, or early adulthood (Anderson, 1998; Anderson et al., 2005; Anderson & Newton, 2004; Bouffard et al., 2016; Gamez-Guadix et al., 2011; Krahe et al., 2003; B. L. Russell & Oswald, 2001; Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009). Anderson (1998) speculated that being sexually abused while young may set up a cycle whereby the one who is victimized learns to perpetrate the same behavior with others. Schatzel-Murphy et al. (2009) summarized another view that child sexual abuse may serve as a traumatic event that leads to the enactment of sexual aggression against others in a later developmental stage. However, the evidence on this relationship is not conclusive: Slotboom et al. (2011) and Parent et al. (2018) found no direct link between past child abuse and FSA.

Adversarial Sex Role and Rape Myth Beliefs

Burt (1980) famously proposed that sexually aggressive behavior was associated with a constellation of beliefs in the adversarial nature of relationships, rape myths, and the acceptability of interpersonal violence. Since then, numerous studies have established that these belief systems are characteristic of some sexually aggressive women. For example, there is strong evidence that U.S. women who engage in sexual aggression tend to perceive heterosexual relationships as competitive, exploitative, and hostile (Anderson, 1998; Bouffard et al., 2016; Christopher et al., 1993; Craig Shea, 1998; Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006). Craig Shea (1998) concluded that a certain subgroup of women are becoming more “detached, pragmatic, and forceful in their relationships” (p. 101.) More recently, T. D. Russell et al. (2017), who found that adversarial attitudes directly predicted women’s sexual violence, speculated that hostile attitudes about interpersonal behavior prevent honest communication and disinhibit aggressive behavior toward a partner.

Women’s acceptance of female rape myths has also been associated with their sexually coercive behavior (Bouffard et al., 2016; Christopher et al., 1993; Parent et al., 2018; T. D. Russell et al., 2017; Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006). Attempting to explain this surprising link, Christopher et al. (1993) speculated that the premise of rape myths is that women are basically in control of sexual situations, even if it ends up in rape (e.g., hence, the rape myth that “Women who are raped really wanted it to happen”). Therefore, a woman who believes in rape myths is also likely to believe that she gets to control sexual situations, including forcing a resistant man into sex.

Beliefs About Sexual Availability and Casual Sex

Gavin and Porter (2015) proposed that women’s implicit beliefs about the nature of men—particularly that men are readily sexually available—are tied to their sexually aggressive behavior. Indeed, Canadian researchers Clements-Schreiber et al. (1998) found that a belief in male availability correlated with verbal sexual coerciveness in a community sample of married women. Parent et al. (2018) reported that one aspect of hyperfemininity—an expectation that men want to have sex—was related to sexual coercion in her sample of Canadian college-age women.

Another explanation of FSA is that it is engaged in by women who endorse sociosexuality, defined as uncommitted and emotionless casual sex (Simpson & Gangstad, 1991). Researchers found that sexually aggressive women from the United States (Shatzel-Murphy et al., 2009) and Portugal (Carvalho & Nobre, 2016) tended to score higher on sociosexuality. However, Yost and Zurbriggen (2006) and Parent et al. (2018) did not find a direct relationship between women’s levels of sociosexuality and FSA.

Relationship Conflict and Sexual Miscommunication

According to some research, how a woman interacts and communicates with a male sexual partner may set the stage for FSA. Christopher et al. (1993) and Christopher et al. (1998) documented that U.S. college women experiencing relationship conflict and ambivalence were prone to use FSA, perhaps as a way to control, test, or strengthen a troubled relationship. Wright et al. (2010) identified an anger reaction in a subset of U.S. college women who wrote narratives about how they reacted to a sexual refusal during a hookup. These authors speculated that the turndown triggered an anger then a “fight” reaction in the women who then, in a type of psychological reactance, attempted to re-establish control of the situation through verbal sexual coercion. Paradoxically, FSA has been linked to women’s misplaced attempts to connect with and form a positive relationship with a male partner (Struckman-Johnson et al., 2000; Zurbriggen, 2000).

Ambiguous communication with partners about sexual intentions has been linked to FSA. Studies of U.S. college women (Craig Shea, 1998) and German women (Krahe et al., 2003) found a relationship between women’s sexual aggression and their use of token no’s (refusing sex when it was really wanted) and compliant yes’s (agreeing to sex when it was not wanted). In at least one study, the trait of sexual assertiveness—having an ability to communicate directly and clearly one’s sexual intentions and preferences—was determined to have a negative relationship with FSA. Krahe et al. (2015), in their study of ten European countries, determined that the odds of a woman engaging in sexual aggression were reduced by 32% per scale point scored higher on a sexual assertiveness measure. The authors speculated that sexual assertiveness is a protective social interaction skill that fosters communication between partners rather than sexual aggression.

Early Courtship Rehearsal, Early Sexual Initiation, and Multiple Partners

Decades ago, Peter B. Anderson suggested that women who engage in sexual aggression as adults may have “rehearsed” this behavior in adolescent courtship by calling up boys. Lending support, Anderson and Newton (2004) documented a relationship between adolescent phone calling to boys and their adult use of persuasive (non-coercive) strategies in initiating sex. Anderson et al. (2005) discovered that women who used physical force in sexual coercion incidents reported making more phone calls to boys during adolescence and calling more boys per week than all other comparison groups.

Having first intercourse at a younger age has been correlated with FSA (Anderson & Newton, 2004; Bouffard et al., 2016.) However, Krahe et al. (2003) found no evidence for this link in their German sample. There is strong evidence from U.S. and German studies that FSA is related to having a higher number of sexual partners (e.g., Anderson et al., 2005; Anderson & Newton, 2004; Christopher et al., 1993; Krahe et al., 2003). In addition, Krahe et al. (2003) and a close replication of their work by Slotboom et al. (2011) established that a predictor of women and girls’ sexual aggression was a belief that it is normal to have high levels of sexual activity with multiple men.

Sexual Motivation

Some researchers have proposed that women’s biological sexual motivation—their sexual interest and sexual preferences—may influence them to engage in FSA. Foremost is the discovery by Shatzel-Murphy et al. (2009) and supported by Parent et al. (2018) and Carvalho and Nobre (2016) that sexual compulsivity (difficulty controlling sexual thoughts and urges) was the keystone predictor of sexual coercion in their samples of U.S., Canadian, and Portuguese women. These same researchers also found that, to a lesser degree, a desire to sexually dominate others contributed to the prediction of FSA. Similarly, Craig Shea (1998) documented that sexually coercive women experienced more sexual arousal and feelings of control and power in reaction to a description of a hypothetical rape of a man by a woman. In addition, Carvalho and Nobre (2016) garnered evidence that some women may use sexual aggression to cover up their anxiety over being judged on their sexual performance. Women’s interest in sex as reflected by their use of erotica has also been correlated with FSA (Bouffard et al., 2016).

Other Variables: Maladaptive Personality and Alcohol Use

There is recent and strong evidence that women who engage in FSA have higher levels of maladaptive personality traits such as primary psychopathy (Khan et al., 2017; Munoz et al., 2011), maladaptive narcissism (Blinkhorn et al., 2015), antisocial behavior and values (Bouffard et al., 2016; Gamez-Guadix et al., 2011), and PID-5 traits of antagonism and psychoticism (T. D. Russell et al., 2017).

The findings are mixed on the relationship between FSA and the use of alcohol. Close to half of Turkish and Chilean college women cited alcohol as a factor in a FSA incident (Shuster, Krahe, Baeze, & Munoz-Reyes, 2016; Shuster, Krahe, & Toplu-Demirtas, 2016). However, Krahe et al. (2015) did not find a relationship between FSA and alcohol use in their study of ten European countries. In the United States, Palmer et al. (2010) documented that college women who perpetrated sexual coercion expressed significantly higher expectancies for the effect of alcohol on sex, but did not differ in alcohol consumption from non-coercive students.

The Current Study

In the present study, we examined the degree to which selected variables could predict sexually aggressive behavior among a sample of U.S. adult female MTurk employees who contracted to take the survey for pay. Five of the potential predictor variables that we chose to study reflected our interests as sexuality researchers and, as reviewed in the categories above, had received research support as viable predictors of FSA: past sexual abuse (e.g., Anderson, 1998), rape myth acceptance (e.g., Bouffard et al., 2016), beliefs about casual sex or sociosexuality (e.g., Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009), sexually assertive communication in relationships (Krahe et al., 2015), and early courtship rehearsal of contacting boys (e.g., Anderson et al., 2005). Representing the category of sexual motivation, we added a new, unstudied variable of sexual sensation seeking (SSS), defined as the propensity or desire to seek out novel sexual adventures (Kalichman & Rompa, 1995). Suggestively, Craig Shea (1998) found that sexually aggressive women, compared to those who were not, reported higher levels of arousal to the novelty aspects of a scenario in which the participant imagines forcing a man to have sex (e.g., having sex with a stranger, trying out “kinky” sex, or having sex in unusual situations).

The dependent measure of FSA was whether or not female MTurk participants had ever since the age of 18 perpetrated one or more tactics of PRSP, a behavior in which one persists to have sexual contact with someone who has refused their advance (Struckman-Johnson et al., 2020).

We made the following hypotheses that the perpetration of at least one PRSP tactic would be

Hypothesis 1: Positively correlated with experiencing past sexual abuse.

Hypothesis 2: Positively correlated belief in heterosexual rape myths (male perpetrator, female victim; female perpetrator, male victim.).

Hypothesis 3: Positively correlated with higher endorsement of casual sex (sociosexuality).

Hypothesis 4: Negatively correlated with the levels of sexual assertiveness.

Hypothesis 5: Positively correlated with higher levels of early rehearsal behavior—contacting others due to attraction before the age of 18.

Hypothesis 6: Positively correlated with higher levels of SSS.

Method

Participants

Total participants in the present study were 667 women (median age = 32; range =18-76) who completed an online questionnaire as paid members of Amazon’s MTurk workforce. These women were self-defined as heterosexual, a requirement for the study because male–female sexual interactions were the focus. Data from 33 women were lost from the analyses due to missing answers. The final sample size was 634 women.

The demographic breakdown of MTurk workers in the United States is a majority female (60%), Caucasian (85%), adults (average age of 32.2 years), and with some college level education (average of 14.9 years). MTurk workers are similar to the 2008 American National Election Panel Study sample in gender (60% female compared to 58%) and education (14.9 years of education compared to 16.2) (Berinsky et al., 2012).

Measures

Demographics

Participants were asked questions about their age, gender identity, and their sexual orientation. Both gender questions had a “decline to state” alternative.

Use of PRSP tactics

Participants completed the 19-item perpetration version of the Post-Refusal Sexual Persistence Scale (PRSPS) (gender neutral version) (Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003, 2020). Participants were asked the following question: “Since the age of 18, how many times have you used any of the tactics on the list below to have sexual contact (genital touching, oral sex, or intercourse) with someone after they indicated “no” to your sexual advance?” Participants entered a number from 0 upward for how frequently they had perpetrated each of 19 tactics.

Of the tactics, three involved sexual arousal of the target (e.g., continuous kissing and touching); eight were emotional manipulation (e.g., repeatedly asking, lying, threatening breakups, questioning sexuality, threatening blackmail); two involved intoxication (e.g., purposely giving someone alcohol or drugs to get them high); and six described varieties of physical force (e.g., using physical restraint, threatening physical harm, actually harming the target, use of a weapon). For scoring, participants were categorized as “not sexually aggressive” if they responded “0” to all 19 tactics. Those who indicated that they had used one or more of the tactics were categorized as “sexually aggressive.” Cronbach’s alpha—a measure of the proportion of a scale’s score that is attributable to error variance (Kline, 1994)—was in the acceptable range of .89 (Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003) and .79 (Smeaton et al., 2018) for the perpetration item set of the PRSP scale.

Past sexual abuse

Sexual abuse was assessed with a single item that read the following: “Have you ever been sexually abused?” Yes or No.

Female and male heterosexual rape myth acceptance

Participants responded to six items that contained heterosexual rape myths about women (e.g., “Most women who are raped by a man are somewhat to blame for not escaping or fighting the man off.”) and six items that contained heterosexual rape myths about men (e.g., “It is impossible for a man to be raped by a woman.”) Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) on a Likert-type scale. Higher scores reflected greater acceptance of rape myths. The items were derived from the Male Rape Myth scale developed by Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1992).

Acceptance of casual sex (sociosexuality)

As recommended by Simpson and Gangstad (1991), we utilized three attitude items from their seven-item Sociosexuality Scale (SOI) (Cronbach’s α = .83). An example is “sex without love is OK.” Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Higher scores denoted greater endorsement of casual, uncommitted sexual relationships.

Sexual assertiveness

We selected the 18-item Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire (SAQ) developed as a measure for women by Loshek and Terrell (2015). The scale assesses three dimensions of assertiveness: communication about sexual initiation, refusal of unwanted sex, and sexual history communication (e.g., revealing past STI’s). An example is “I refuse to have sex if I don’t want to.” Responses were modified to 1 (never), 2 (sometimes), and 3 (always). Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales were .78 to .81. Higher scores denoted more sexual assertiveness.

Early courtship rehearsal of contacting boys

The item that assessed phone calling of boys in a previous study (Anderson et al., 2005) was updated to reflect new technology: “Prior to the age of 18, how many different people did you call/text/tweet/sext because you were attracted to them?” Participants responded by entering a number from 0 upward.

Sexual Sensation Seeking

We used the SSS, an 11-item scale developed by Kalichman and Rompa (1995) that is designed to test relationships between sensation seeking and risky behaviors (Cronbach’s α = .79). An example is “I am interested in trying out new sexual experiences.” Responses ranged from 1 (not at all like me), 2 (somewhat like me), 3 (often like me), and 4 (very much like me). Higher scores reflected having a greater interest in SSS.

Procedures

After the original study plan was reviewed and approved by the IRB (approval #08-14-12-0267626), an account was created on the MTurk online site. Invitations were then sent through the site asking employees to participate in a research study about the relationships between specific psychological characteristics and adult heterosexual sexual behavior. MTurk employees were offered US$ 2.00 per completed/usable survey, a rate that typically can range between US$ 0.50 and US$ 5.00. After reading the informed consent and understanding that all information collected would be anonymous, employees who were interested in the study were linked to the survey.

Results

Response Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics

Of the 634 female participants, 16% indicated that they had used at least one PRSP tactic since the age of 18. The percentages of women who reported using at least one tactic from a PRSP category were 15% for arousal, 10% for emotional manipulation, 4% for intoxication, and 5% for physical force.

Comparisons of Mean Scores of Groups Using and Not Using a PRSP Tactic

Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics obtained for participants who did or did not report using at least one PRSP tactic. For both groups, scores on the two measures of female and male rape acceptance clustered close to the minimum possible score on each scale, indicating disagreement with rape myths. By contrast, both groups had SOI (casual sex) and SSS mean scores close to the midpoint of the possible range of those measures, and the mean SAQ scale scores were close to the maximum possible score on that measure, reflecting greater sexual assertiveness skills.

Table 1.

Comparison of Means for Heterosexual Women Reporting No Past Use of PRSP Tactics With Those Reporting Use of At Least One Tactic on Variables Hypothesized to be Predictive of FSA.

Variable	Possible range	Never used a PRSP tactic			Used at least one PRSP tactic				df	p (two-tailed)	Partial eta²
Variable	Possible range	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	t	df	p (two-tailed)	Partial eta²
Female heterosexual rape myth acceptance^a	6–36	530	10.10	4.70	99	11.79	4.65	3.31	138.15^b	.001	.02
Male heterosexual rape myth acceptance^c	6–36	532	12.11	5.23	100	14.65	5.68	4.40	630.00	<.001	.03
Sociosexuality^d	3–27	532	11.82	7.01	101	13.47	7.00	2.16	631.00	.031	.01
Sexual assertiveness
Total SAQ score^e	18–54	525	44.36	7.88	101	41.31	7.00	−3.63	624.00	<.001	.02
SAQ sexual initiation and satisfaction subscale	8–24	530	18.89	4.51	101	18.94	4.22	0.10	629.00	n.s.	.00
SAQ refusal of unwanted sex subscale	5–15	530	12.63	3.42	101	11.04	2.14	−6.13	210.95^b	<.001	.03
SAQ sexual history communication	5–15	533	12.82	3.32	101	11.33	3.90	−3.60	128.93^b	<.001	.03
Before the age of 18, # of people you called/texted/tweeted/sexted due to attraction	—	529	2.57	3.33	98	4.63	7.03	2.84	105.19^b	.005	.03
Sexual sensation seeking	11–44	531	22.79	6.57	100	25.89	7.32	4.25	629.00	<.001	.03

Note. PRSP = Post-Refusal Sexual Persistence; SAQ = Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire.

Higher scores denote greater female rape myth acceptance. ^bDegrees of freedom reduced because the result of Levine’s Test of Equality of Variance does not indicate that equal variance between groups can be assumed. ^cHigher scores denote greater male rape myth acceptance. ^dHigher scores denote greater acceptance of casual sexual activity. ^eHigher scores denote higher levels of sexual assertiveness.

Mean and percentage comparisons for hypotheses

Table 1 shows comparisons of mean scores or percentages for women who did and did not report past use of at least one PRSP tactic. The percentage of women in each PRSP tactic group who reported having experienced past sexual abuse did not significantly differ, Chi square = 2.20, p = .138. Women who reported past use of PRSP tactics had significantly higher mean scores on female rape myth acceptance and male heterosexual rape myth acceptance, denoting less disagreement with myths. Women who had used a PRSP tactic received significantly higher mean scores on the SOI scale, denoting greater acceptance of casual sex.

Those reporting past use of a PRSP tactic had lower SAQ scale scores, reflecting lower sexual assertiveness skills. Because scores for the entire SAQ measure differed between the two PRSP tactic use groups, group means for the measure’s three subscales were also compared. Consistent with the finding for the full measure, women who used a PRSP tactic had lower scores (less assertiveness) on the “Refusal of Unwanted Sex” and “Sexual History Communication” subscales. Scores on the “Sexual Initiation and Satisfaction” subscale, however, did not significantly differ across the two groups. Women who had used a PRSP tactic had a significantly higher number of “rehearsal” contacts with attractive others before the age of 18. Finally, women who had used PRSP tactics had higher scores on the SSS, indicating they had more interest in sexually sensational activities.

Logistic Regression Findings for Predictors of Female Use of At Least One PRSP Tactic

A step-wise logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify which of the set of variables found to have significant PRSP tactic group mean differences can best predict PRSP tactic usage. Although this approach to variable selection in regression analyses has been criticized (e.g., Pedhazur, 1997), Cohen and Cohen (1983) concluded that this approach can be an effective approach for determining how to account for the maximum amount of R² with the minimum number of predictor variables if two conditions are met. First, the research goal is predictive rather than explanatory, and second, the ratio of predictors to sample n is at least 1 to 40. As the focus of the present study is the identification of factors that predict FSA and the ratio of predictors being examined (nine) to sample n (634) is 1 to 71, it meets both criteria. As a result, female and male heterosexual rape myth acceptance, SOI (casual sex), the three SAQ subscales (sexual assertiveness), the number of people prior to the age of 18 called/texted/tweeted/sexted because of being attracted to them, SSS, and age were entered into a forward logistical regression analysis as predictors of using or not using a PRSP tactic. Although age was not hypothesized to be predictive of PRSP tactic usage, it was included as a predictor variable to determine if the effects of the remaining variables are significant when controlling for participant age.

As summarized in Table 2, the following five measures independently accounted for significant portions of the variance in past PRSP tactic use: SAQ Refusal of Unwanted Sex subscale, SSS, number called/texted/tweeted because attracted, male heterosexual rape myth, and SAQ sexual history communication subscale. Altogether, this set of variables accounted for 19% of the variance in the use of at least one PRSP tactic. With these variables entered into the equation as predictors, the Wald values for female rape myth acceptance, SOI (casual sex), the SAQ sexual initiation and satisfaction subscale, and age were not statistically significant.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Findings for Predictors of Female Use of At Least One PRSP Tactic.

Measure	B	SE	Wald	Significance	Odds ratio	R^2a change
SAQ refusal of unwanted sex subscale	−0.19	0.51	13.72	<.001	0.86	.07
SSS	0.06	0.18	11.58	.001	1.06	.03
Prior to the age of 18, # of people you called/ texted/tweeted/sexted due to attraction	0.08	0.02	10.47	.001	1.08	.05
Attitudes toward male heterosexual rape	0.06	0.02	7.04	.008	1.06	.03
SAQ sexual history communication	−0.07	0.03	4.21	.040	0.93	.01

Note. PRSP = Post-Refusal Sexual Persistence; SAQ = Sexual History Communication.

Nagelkerke R².

Discussion

The goal of this article was to expand knowledge of female sexual aggression by reviewing findings from the academic literature and by adding results of our own study of predictors of FSA among a sample of adult MTurk women, U.S. employees of an Amazon company paid to take the survey. Using analysis of group means and frequency estimates, followed by a regression analysis, we examined how variables related to exposure to an aggressive environment, attitudes about sex and gender, partner sexual communication, early courtship pursuit of attractive others, and sexual motivation were related to engaging in sexual aggression, defined as using a tactic of post-refusal sexual persistence (PRSP) since the age of 18.

Summary of FSA Predictors

Variables found to predict FSA

The major finding of this study was that five measures reflecting four variables of interest made statistically significant contributions to a predictive model of FSA that accounted for 19% of the variance. Confirming Hypothesis 4 for sexual assertiveness—having a lower score (less assertiveness) on a subscale measure of one’s ability to refuse unwanted sex (7% of variance) and on a subscale measure of asking about a partner’s past sexual history (1% of variance)—accounted for the largest share of the model variance (8%). Our results, together with a similar finding from Krahe et al. (2015), suggest that women who are better at communicating sexual intentions and concerns about sexual health are less likely to be sexually persistent with a reluctant partner.

In line with Hypothesis 2, scores on a measure of acceptance of heterosexual male rape myths were significantly related to FSA (3% of variance). To qualify this finding, women who had engaged in sexual aggression disagreed with male rape myths less strongly than women who did not. This result suggests that holding even low levels of beliefs that men are invulnerable to rape by women may contribute to FSA.

We also found a small but significant relationship between FSA and two variables that reflected early courtship rehearsal and adult sexual interest. In support of Hypothesis 5, women who had initiated contact with attractive others before the age of 18 were more likely to have engaged in sexual aggression (5% of variance). As suggested by Anderson (1998), it could be that girls who contact boys are “rehearsing” sexual initiation behavior that may evolve into sexually aggressive tactics later in life. Consistent with Hypothesis 6, women who scored higher on a measure of SSS were more likely to have engaged in sexual aggression (3% of variance). One interpretation is that women who have a high level of SSS may be drawn to the novelty and excitement of a situation in which they force a man to have sex.

Implications

An important finding of our study is that the prevalence of FSA in this sample of MTurk women was 16%. Based upon our earlier literature review, this percentage matches the average of 20 U.S. and Canadian studies reviewed by Anderson et al., 2020, and matches the higher rates reported in international studies (e.g., Shuster, Krahe, Baeze, & Munoz-Reyes, 2016). We argue that a prevalence rate of 16% is sufficiently large to reflect a serious social problem. The types of behavior reported in our study cannot be characterized as harmless acts of “seduction.” Of the group of 101 women who reported the use of any PRSP tactic, at least 23% exploited a man’s intoxicated condition, an action considered illegal in many U.S. states (RAINN, 2020). Thirty percent used a physical force tactic, and of these, 8% reported the use of a weapon. While we assume that the behaviors reported in our study were not reported to the police, tactics used in many incidents could have been addressed by the criminal justice system. Our results suggest that adjudicated female offenders and non-adjudicated women who report serious sexual misconduct in anonymous surveys may have more in common than assumed.

Another implication of our study is that there are a substantial number of men who have experienced sexual misconduct at the hands of women. Although there is evidence that some men report being minimally upset by FSA (e.g., Struckman-Johnson, 1988), newer studies have clarified that men can be harmed by FSA, even if the tactics are “minor” and do not involve physical force. For example, Turchik (2012) discovered that sexual victimization among male college students (carried out by women in 48% of incidents) was related to increased alcohol consumption, tobacco use, sexual risk-taking behaviors, and problems with sexual functioning. These effects were highest in men who reported rape, but occurred also in men exposed to less severe types of sexual aggression. The recent pioneering work by Weare (2018) of the UK illuminated how women used a range of tactics to have forced penile penetration with reluctant men, often to devastating emotional effects on the male target. As Stemple et al. (2017) argued, we need to recognize and treat with empathy those who are victimized by women, less they be doubly harmed (p. 309).

This raises the question of how should society respond to knowledge about the prevalence of sexually aggressive women and mitigate the harm done to their targets. One response would be to encourage men to report serious levels of FSA to the authorities, thus potentially turning the unreported woman into an adjudicated offender. To facilitate this reporting process, Budd et al. (2019) recommend that police enforcement training incorporate the possibility that women may be sexually assaultive. Another strategy is to educate the public, especially youth, about FSA—what it is, how it happens, “profiles” of perpetrators, how it affects targets, and how to prevent its occurrence. A third option, and one that is furthest from realization, is to develop ways to assess the “trajectory of development” of risk levels of FSA among females from adolescence through adulthood (Williams et al., 2008). The ultimate goal would be to implement cognitive and behavioral interventions for girls “at risk” for sexual aggression in schools, therapeutic settings, and detention facilities.

Recommendations for Future Research

All of these approaches will require more research on predictor variables of FSA. In future research, we encourage continued study of variables from the six categories which we identify in this article. The category of exposure to an “aggressive environment and abuse” may be particularly important, as sexually aggressive women, like female sexual offenders, tend to show “troubled” backgrounds with traumatic events (Bouffard et al., 2016). While we did not find a link between past sexual abuse and FSA in the current study, perhaps we would have if our measure had specified childhood sexual abuse. From the category of “adversarial attitudes,” we recommend the continued study of rape myths and suggest that researchers utilize more direct measures of adversarial beliefs (e.g., Burt’s, 1980, adversarial belief scale). For the category of “sexuality beliefs,” we encourage the continued study of casual sex acceptance (sociosexuality), even though it was not a significant predictor in our study. Other research indicates that it may be a “sleeper” variable that mediates the links between FSA and other variables such as strong adversarial beliefs (Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006) and a desire for sexual dominance (Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009). Also from this category, we recommend exploring the relationship between FSA and sexual stereotyping, particularly beliefs that men are hyper-sexual beings ready for sex at any time. According to Anderson and Aymami (1993), some women may justify their acts of sexual aggression by assuming that they are actually “giving” a man what he already wants.

The category of “relationship conflict and sexual miscommunication” shows great promise in revealing causes of FSA, as indicated by our finding of the protective role of assertive sexual communication. Swirling around the edges of much of the FSA research is the theme of interpersonal relationships gone awry—two persons with a desire to affiliate yet are unable to articulate their sexual desires, use token no’s and compliant yes’s, and make wrong assumptions about what the other wants (e.g., Christopher et al., 1993). FSA in these situations may be less a reflection of hostility and exploitation than of social awkwardness and inability to communicate.

Given our success with connecting FSA with a unique variable of “early courtship rehearsal,” further exploration of other variables in this category such as early age of sexual initiation and having a high number of sexual partners before the age of 18 is in order. For the “sexual motivation” category, we suggest that researchers continue the study of SSS and consider other factors of sexual compulsivity (difficulty controlling sexual urges) and a desire for sexual dominance (e.g., Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009; Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006), as well as over-investment in sexual behavior (Parent et al., 2018).

Finally, we recommend adding two new categories of FSA potential predictors that we did not explore in the current study. The first of these would be “alcohol and drug use.” Although we reported mixed findings in the literature about this factor, alcohol and drug use remains a well-established risk factor in U.S. campus sexual assaults (Monks et al., 2010) and merits further study. In addition, we strongly recommend that researchers focus on a relatively new FSA factor—maladaptive personality traits related to psychopathology (e.g., callousness, charm, and selfishness) and antisocial values (e.g., Bouffard et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2017; T. D. Russell et al., 2017). In our reading of this emerging literature, these traits may prove to connect the behavior of college women who engage in serious levels of FSA with that of adjudicated offenders in the criminal justice system.

Limitations

Our study is limited in that we used a convenience sample of MTurk employees and results may not generalize to the population of women in the United States. Because we utilized only data from heterosexual women, our results do not reflect the experiences of bisexual, lesbian, transgender, and intersex persons. Our self-report data may have been affected by a reluctance to admit negative social behavior and by the memory of past events. We were able to account for 19% of the variance in our analysis, which was higher than 12% reported by Parent et al. (2018) and 14% found by T. D. Russell et al. (2017) for a university sample, but lower than 29% documented in T. D. Russell et al.’s (2017) analysis with MTurk women. Furthermore, our data are correlational and cannot be used to infer cause–effect relationships among the variables examined.

Conclusion

Schatzel-Murphy et al. (2009), citing Campbell’s (1993) concern that female aggression is viewed by society as an “aberration” and “capricious” (pp. 143-144), declared that FSA is predictable and understandable. We conclude that our research makes a modest contribution toward establishing the predictability of women’s sexually aggressive behavior. One important recommendation based on our findings is that the teaching of sexually assertive communication skills be integrated into sexual education programs offered to teens and young adults. Specifically, learning how to articulate a clear refusal to sexual initiation and to ask partners about their sexual health may offer a degree of protection against FSA. Sexual communication skill building would meld well with sexual assault prevention programs that teach men and women on how to talk about and clearly obtain explicit consent before engaging in a sexual interaction. In light of our results, a final recommendation is that sex education programs challenge rape myths and stereotypic beliefs that suggest that men are invulnerable to and not harmed by the sexually aggressive behavior of women.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

A portion of this research on SSS was reported in a poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Montreal, Canada, November 2018.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Faculty Interest Research Grant from Walden University received by Peter B. Anderson.

Author Biographies

Cindy Struckman-Johnson, professor of Psychology, currently teaches sexuality at the University of South Dakota. She received her PhD in Social Psychology from the University of Kentucky. Research interests include prison and military sexual assault. She has co-authored an edited book on female sexual aggression and has published over 40 refereed journal articles and chapters.

Peter B. Anderson currently teaches as a senior contributing faculty in the College of Health Sciences at Walden University. He received his PhD from New York University in Human Sexuality and has studied and taught sexuality in many countries including Kenya, Sweden, and Russia. He has published two edited books, ten books chapters, and over 75 professional articles.

George Smeaton currently serves as director for Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research at Keene State College, New Hampshire. He received his PhD in social and personality psychology from the University at Albany-State University of New York. He has authored over 17 publications on topics that include sexual aggression and unsafe sexual behavior.

References

Anderson

P. B.

(1998). Women’s motives for sexual initiation and aggression. In Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

(Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 79–93). Guilford.

Anderson

P. B.

Aymami

(1993). Reports of female initiation of sexual contact; Male and female differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22(4), 335–343.

Anderson

P. B.

Kontos

A. P.

Tanigoshi

Struckman-Johnson

(2005). A comparison of sexual strategies used by urban Southern and rural Midwestern University women. The Journal of Sex Research, 42(4), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552289

Anderson

P. B.

Newton

(2004). Predicting the use of sexual initiation tactics in a sample of college women. Electronic Journal Human Sexuality, 7. http://www.ejhs.org/volume7/Anderson/text.html

Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

Smeaton

(2020). Generation by gender differences in use of sexual aggression: A replication of the Millennial Shift. The Journal of Sex Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1733457

Beres

M. A.

Terry

Senn

C. Y.

Ross

L. K.

(2019). Accounting for men’s refusal of heterosex: A story-completion study with young adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1399978

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Blinkhorn

Lyons

Almond

(2015). The ultimate femme fatale? Narcissism predicts serious and aggressive sexually coercive behaviour in females. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.001

Bouffard

J. A.

Bouffard

L. A.

Miller

H. A.

(2016). Examining the correlates of women’s use of sexual coercion: Proposing an explanatory model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(13), 2360–2382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515575609

10.

Buday

S. K.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2015). Men’s and women’s interpretation and endorsement of items measuring self-reported heterosexual aggression. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 1042–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.967373

11.

Budd

K. M.

Rocque

Bierie

D. M.

(2019). Deconstructing incidents of campus sexual assault: Comparing male and female victimizations. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 31, 296–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217706708

12.

Burt

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(7), 217–230.

13.

Campbell

(1993). Men, women, and aggression: From rage in marriage to violence in the streets – How gender affects the way we act. Harper Collins.

14.

Carvalho

Nobre

(2016). Psychosexual characteristics of women reporting sexual aggression against men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(15), 2539–2555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515579504

15.

Christopher

F. S.

Madura

Weaver

(1998). Premarital sexual aggressors: A multivariate analysis of social, relational, and individual variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 56–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786925

16.

Christopher

F. S.

Owens

L. A.

Stecker

H. L.

(1993). An examination of single men’s and women’s sexual aggressiveness in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(4), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407593104003

17.

Clements-Schreiber

M. E.

Rempel

J. K.

Desmarais

(1998). Women’s sexual pressure tactics and adherence to related attitudes: A step toward prediction. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551933

18.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Craig Shea

M. E

. (1998). When the tables are turned: Verbal sexual coercion among college women. In Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

(Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 94–104). Guilford.

20.

Fisher

N. L.

Pina

(2013, January–February). An overview of the literature on female-perpetrated adult male sexual victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.10.001

21.

Gamez-Guadix

Straus

M. A.

Hershberger

S. L.

(2011). Childhood and adolescent victimization and perpetration of sexual coercion by male and female university students. Deviant Behavior, 32, 713–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2010.514213

22.

Gannon

Rose

M. R.

Ward

(2010). Pathways to female sexual offending: Approach or avoidance? Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(5), 359–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160902754956

23.

Gavin

Porter

(2015). Female aggression. John Wiley.

24.

Hines

D. A.

Saudino

K. J.

(2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scales. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.197

25.

Hogben

Waterman

(2000). Patterns of conflict resolution within relationships and coercive sexual behavior of men and women. Sex Roles, 43(5/6), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026647326238

26.

Kalichman

S. C.

Rompa

(1995). Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity scales: Reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 568–601. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_16

27.

Khan

Brewer

Kim

Munoz-Centifanti

L. C.

(2017). Students, sex, and psychopathy: Borderline and psychopathy personality traits are differently related to women and men’s use of sexual coercion, partner poaching, and promiscuity. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.027

28.

Kline

(1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.

29.

Krahe

Berger

Vanwesenbeeck

Bianchi

Chliaoutakis

Fernández-Fuertes

A. A.

… Zygadło

(2015). Prevalence and correlates of young people’s sexual aggression perpetration and victimization in 10 European countries: A multi-level analysis. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(9), 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.989265

30.

Krahe

Waizenhofer

Moller

(2003). Women’s sexual aggression against men: Prevalence and predictors. Sex Roles, 49(5/6), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024648106477

31.

LaPlant

M. N.

McCormick

Brannigan

G. G.

(1980). Living the sexual script: College students’ views of influence in sexual encounters. The Journal of Sex Research, 16(4), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498009551090

32.

Loshek

Terrell

H. K.

(2015). The development of the Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire (SAQ): A comprehensive measure of sexual assertiveness for women. The Journal of Sex Research, 32(9), 1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.4014.944970

33.

Monks

S. M.

Tomaka

R. P.

Palacios

Thompson

S. E.

(2010). Sexual victimization in female and male college students: Examining the roles of alcohol use, alcohol expectancies, and sexual sensation seeking. Substance Use & Abuse, 45, 2258–2280.

34.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(1998). The importance and dangers of studying sexually aggressive women. In Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

(Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 19–48). Guilford.

35.

Munoz

L. C.

Khan

Cordwell

(2011). Sexually coercive tactics used by university students: A clear role for primary psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.1.28

36.

Palmer

R. S.

McMahon

T. J.

Rounsaville

B. J.

Ball

S. A.

(2010). Coercive sexual experiences, protective behavioral strategies, alcohol expectancies and consumption among male and female college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(9), 1563–1578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354581

37.

Parent

Robitaille

M. P.

Guay

J. P.

(2018). Sexual coercion perpetrated by women: Testing an etiological model. Sexologies, 27, e39–e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2018.02.008

38.

Pedhazur

E. J.

(1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). Harcourt Brace.

39.

RAINN. (2020). The legal role of consent. https://www.rainn.org/articles/legal-role-consent

40.

Russell

B. L.

Oswald

D. L.

(2001, July). Strategies and dispositional correlates of sexual coercion perpetrated by women: An exploratory investigation. Sex Roles, 45(1/2), 103–115. https://link-springer-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/article/10.1023/A:1013016502745

41.

Russell

T. D.

Doan

C. M.

King

A. R.

(2017). Sexually violent women: The PID-5, everyday sadism, and adversarial sexual attitudes predict female sexual aggression and coercion against male victims. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.019

42.

Schatzel-Murphy

E. A.

Harris-Raymond

D. A.

Knight

Milburn

M. A.

(2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9481-y

43.

Shuster

Krahe

Baeza

P. I.

Munoz-Reyes

J. A.

(2016). Sexual aggression victimization and perpetration among male and female college students in Chile. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1354. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01354

44.

Shuster

Krahe

Toplu-Demirtas

(2016). Prevalence of sexual aggression, victimization and perpetration in a sample of female and male college students in Turkey. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(9), 1139–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1207057

45.

Simpson

J. A.

Gangstad

S. W.

(1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870

46.

Slotboom

Hendriks

Verbruggen

(2011). Contrasting adolescent female and male sexual aggression: A self-report study on prevalence and predictors of sexual aggression. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.544413

47.

Smeaton

G. L.

Struckman-Johnson

Fagen

J. L.

Bohn

Anderson

P. B.

(2018). Generation cohort differences in male and female use of tactics to gain sex from an unwilling partner. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 24, 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2018.1440088

48.

Stemple

Flores

Meyer

I. H.

(2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.007

49.

Stock

(1998). Women’s sexual coercion of men: A feminist analysis. In Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

(Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 169–184). Guilford.

50.

Struckman-Johnson

(1988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men, too. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551418

51.

Struckman-Johnson

Anderson

P. B.

(1998). Introduction. In Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

(Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 1–8). Guilford.

52.

Struckman-Johnson

Anderson

P. B.

(1998). “Men do and women don’t”: Difficulties in researching sexually aggressive women. In Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

(Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 9–18). Guilford.

53.

Struckman-Johnson

Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

(2000, August 4–8). Tactics and motives of sexually aggressive college women and men. Paper presented at the 108th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, United States.

54.

Struckman-Johnson

Anderson

P. B.

Struckman-Johnson

Smeaton

(2020). Post-refusal sexual persistence scale. In Milhausen

Sakaluk

Fisher

Davis

Yarber

W. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (4th ed., pp. 208–2011). Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

55.

Struckman-Johnson

(1992). Acceptance of male rape myths among college men and women. Sex Roles, 27(3/4), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289570

56.

Struckman-Johnson

Anderson

P. B.

(2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552168

57.

Turchik

J. A.

(2012). Sexual victimization among male college students: Assault severity, sexual functioning, and health risk behaviors. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024605

58.

Weare

(2018 August). From coercion to physical force: Aggressive strategies used by women against men in “forced-to-penetrate” cases in the UK. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 2191–2205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1232-5

59.

Williams

J. R.

Ghandour

R. W.

Kub

J. E.

(2008). Female perpetration of violence in heterosexual intimate relationships: Adolescence through adulthood. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 9(4), 227–249. https://doi.com/10.1177/1524838008324418

60.

Wright

Norton

D. L.

Matusek

J. A.

(2010). Predicting verbal coercion following sexual refusal during a hookup: Diverging gender patterns. Sex Roles, 62, 647–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9763-9

61.

Yost

M. R.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

(2006). Gender differences in the enactment of sociosexuality: An examination of implicit social motives, sexual fantasies, coercive sexual attitudes, and aggressive sexual behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552311

62.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

(2000). Social motives and cognitive power-sex association: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.000